Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Care and Support

Mr Alan Savoury commented that, in 1993, he had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. At the time he received no support from the City Council. In 1999 he received the same diagnosis and also at this time he received no support from the City Council. It was only in 2010 when he was diagnosed with stomach cancer that he received any support from the City Council. Throughout this period he was the main carer for his wife. He therefore asked why he had not received any support from the City Council until 2010?

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, commented that the issues raised by Mr Savoury needed to be investigated. Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, commented that the issues appeared to have occurred over a number of years and a meeting should be arranged with Mr Savoury to discuss these issues and she would arrange for this to take place.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Budget Cuts

Dawn Sanders, a journalist from Sheffield Hallam University, asked how Sheffield City Council had dealt with the budget cuts imposed upon them and, with further cuts on the way, how did they plan to implement these and challenge the Government?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the final financial settlement had not yet been confirmed but the City Council expected to need to make £60m of savings in the next financial year.

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, added that a budget consultation event had been held in October which had invited views from the public. At this event the Council’s approach to implementing the cuts was outlined and endorsed by those present. The approach looked at prevention and took a longer term view. Further information could be provided if requested.

Councillor Julie Dore further commented that officers would discuss savings within their teams and the politicians would make the final decisions. This would be based on the administrations ambitions and priorities. The final budget would be submitted to Cabinet in February 2015 and to Full Council in March 2015.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Business Services Sourcing Strategy

Mr Nigel Slack referred to item 12 on the agenda ‘Business Services Sourcing Strategy’ and commented that this was confirmation that he had been expecting that the current Capita contract was to be extended for another six years. Mr Slack commented that his concerns over the outsourcing of public services was well known to the Cabinet and he was concerned that this report confirmed that the Council lacked the ‘capacity’ to bring the whole contract in-house as one of the options. He was happy to see that the customer facing roles would be brought back in-house and may therefore better reflect the Council’s previously stated view that the poor and unemployed were not the causes of austerity but its victims.

Mr Slack therefore asked: Will the Council be working to recover the lost capacity within the Council for more of the currently outsourced contracts, including this one? If that was feasible will they take advantage of the break points to return more of the contract in-house? And Have the Council been able to renegotiate the profit element of this contract and if so what is the profit cap?

Councillor Ben Curran acknowledged that, in the past, the Council had not been the best example of contracting. However, lessons had been learned. He hoped that the contract was the best option for the City. There were break away clauses should the Council need to. Annual market testing would be undertaken. This was a good way to keep the contractor ‘on its toes’ and keep them focused on continual delivery.

It was impossible to say at this stage what would happen if the Council had to break away. However, it was important to have this flexibility. Commercial arrangements had been renegotiated; however these could not be discussed due to commercial sensitivity. Paragraph 8 of the report showed that savings had been made through back office savings rather than cuts to the services the people of the City relied upon.

The insourcing of the Revenues and Benefits service was quality driven. This was the only area where customer complaints had been received. Councillor Curran was confident that the in house team would provide a quality service.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Budget Savings

Nigel Slack commented that, from the first budget consultation event, it became clear that the Council had naturally been working on potential savings over the summer and since then Mr Slack was given to understand that identified savings were in the region of £40m. This left a lot of work to be done but, in order to prevent duplication and so that people could make early comment on proposals, good or bad, would the Council declare their current position? This was common practice in many other Councils and gave opposition parties and public alike the chance to flag up areas of agreement and dissent in plenty of time for alternatives to be considered rather than in the last few weeks before the budget meeting in March.

Councillor Ben Curran responded that the target for the next financial year was to make £60m savings. £30m of this was a reduction in the Revenue Support Grant. The rest were service pressures, reduction in specific grants and to a small extent inflation. The Council would stick to the plan outlined at the budget consultation event which appeared to be supported by those present. There would be a full budget consultation event in the new year. The budget papers would be published five clear working days prior to the Cabinet meeting in February and the Full Council meeting in March and this process seemed to have worked well in the past.

Councillor Julie Dore added that officers did provide opposition parties with briefings throughout the process so they were aware of the exact figures and savings which needed to be found. This gave opposition parties the opportunity to present alternative budget savings at the Full Council meeting in March.

5.5

Public Question in respect of National Insurance Contributions

Nigel Slack commented that, at the start of their current conference, the CBI called for the raising of the National Insurance threshold for the low paid to address their concerns over the struggle of low paid workers. If Mr Slack was correct this would also affect their pensions through lower contributions being made and would benefit the corporations by reducing their own contributions on behalf of their staff. Did the Council agree that a simpler and quicker solution might be for the CBI to recommend their members to increase wages?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she hoped she was speaking on behalf of her group that she believed the CBI should recommend that their members should increase wages for their staff as an absolute minimum. She was not fully clear how this worked in respect of National Insurance contributions and pensions. When there was a move to a single state pension contributions would be irrelevant and based upon years of contribution.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Webcasting

Nigel Slack stated that he continued to press for webcasting of Council meetings and he was currently putting proposals for a cost free means of doing so, that might even generate revenue for the Council, into the budget conversation. In the meantime a ‘techy’ friend had suggested it may be possible to plug into the Council amplification system to radically improve the quality of his recordings. He therefore asked if the Council consent to him looking into this potential and if so advise with whom?

Councillor Julie Dore reported that the Council was currently looking into public access in the Council Chamber and the use of equipment and Mr Slack’s comments would be taken on board.

5.7

Public Question in respect of the Centenary Field Dedication

Nigel Slack commented that he commended the City Council for its intention to reflect on the 100 years since the first world war with the Centenary Fields project. The site at Weston Park with the adjacent museum was entirely fitting. Mr Slack’s grandfather survived the Somme but never talked about it and this seemed to be a common experience for those lucky few that did come home. Therefore Mr Slack asked and urged the Council to try and find some altruistic company, university or personage that will enable a suitable commemoration to be created for the site?

Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, thanked Mr Slack for his comments. The Council would work with Field of Trust and the British Legion in relation to a commemoration event and there would be a plaque of some king installed. She would have to reflect on producing something larger and whether this would be appropriate near to a war memorial but she would hold discussions in this respect.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Devolution

Nigel Slack reported that, from comments made at the Sheffield Executive Board meeting, held on the morning of this Cabinet meeting, it seemed clear that a devolution offer was on the table for the Sheffield City Region. Would the Council commit to any offer being put before the public for comment before a decision was made?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the Council did not have the time to go to the public with the negotiations due to the timetable set by the Government as they wanted to make a statement in the Autumn Statement on 3 December. All Cabinet believed that devolution was right for the City and the City Region. When the Government and the City Region had reached an agreement this would be publicised and the implications of this and Councillor Dore hoped that there would be an opportunity for consultation on this.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Tenants Authority

Mr Martin Brighton asked whether Council-supported tenants had the authority to decide where people belonging to an ethnic minority were allowed to live and to demand that the Housing Service relocate people belonging to an ethnic minority according to personal whims?

Councillor Dore confirmed that they did not have the authority.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Tenants Publicity Material

Martin Brighton asked, where Council supported tenants publicised material around the community that incited hatred of another group, was it expected that they continued to be supported in their action by the Council? They continued to be recognised by officers and elected Members? The police not be informed?

Councillor Dore stated that if that were the case it was not expected that they would continue to be supported by the Council. The Council would have to reconsider recognition and the police should be informed were that to be the case.

5.11

Public Question in respect of Criminal Damage

Martin Brighton asked, where there was criminal damage caused by Council supported tenants, can the community reasonably expect that the damage was put right? The damage was fairly reported by the Housing Service? The Police be informed? The perpetrator was cautioned by the Council that they were in breach of their tenancy, and evicted if the behaviour did not cease?

Councillor Dore confirmed that would be the case and any action would be in accordance with the tenants tenancy agreement.

5.12

Public Question in respect of Member and Officer Behaviour

Martin Brighton asked, where senior Council officers, supported by an Elected Member, serially and wilfully abrogate their Council, or statutory duties was it reasonably expected that the Council would continue to support them? Steps would be taken to ensure they continued without censure? Those reporting their unacceptable behaviour shall be targeted?

Councillor Dore commented that the behaviour of Members was covered by the Members Code of Conduct. If a specific example could be identified of a Member not following the code,  due process would be followed.

5.13

Public Question in respect of Officer Behaviour

Martin Brighton asked, where senior Council officers deliberately misdirected external statutory agencies, especially where such inappropriate action was to defend errant behaviour of senior Elected Members, can it reasonably be expected that the Council will self-report the offences? The miscreant officers are disciplined? The senior Elected Members required to stand down? The errors are voluntarily corrected by the Council?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that there was also an Officer Code of Conduct which officers had to follow. Discipline procedures had been established where it was found that officers were not following this. Members of the public could take issues to the Local Government Ombudsman if they did not feel the Council were dealing satisfactorily with their complaint.